SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Deep brain stimulation and magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound for essential tremor: a meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Successful MRgFUS VIM Thalamotomy for Essential Tremor Nearby Cavernous Malformation: Image Case Report.Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery · 2026Article
- Magnetic Resonance Image Guided Focused Ultrasound Thalamotomy for Essential Tremor in a Patient with an Arteriovenous Malformation.Tremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared the effectiveness and safety of deep brain stimulation (DBS) and magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) in patients with essential tremor (ET). A comprehensive search was conducted across four databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane CENTRAL) till June 2025. Clinical trials and observational studies comparing DBS and MRgFUS in patients with ET were included. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan version 5.4 and OpenMetaAnalyst, applying a random-effect model. Five cohort studies (463 patients) were included. In the total Clinical Rating Scale for Tremor (CRST) score, there was a significant difference between the two groups favoring DBS (mean difference (MD): 5.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): [1.08, 9.16], P = 0.01), while in part A of the CRST, there was no significant difference (P = 0.15). No significant difference was found between the two groups in response rate as well (P = 0.56). Paresthesia (13.3% vs. 2.2%; risk ratio (RR): 4.57, 95% CI: [1.31, 15.94], P = 0.02), gait instability (26.56% vs. 4.06%; RR: 2.85, 95% CI: [1.14, 7.08], P = 0.025), and dysphagia (7.77% vs. 1.37%; RR: 3.40, 95% CI: [1.01, 11.46], P = 0.049) were significantly more frequent in the FUS group compared with DBS. Other serious but rare adverse events (AEs), such as infection and hemorrhage, were more common in the DBS group, but none significantly differed between the two groups. Both DBS and MRgFUS showed similar response rates; however, DBS may provide greater improvement in the total CRST score, potentially due to the comparison of bilateral DBS against predominantly unilateral MRgFUS. Regarding safety, MRgFUS was more associated with sensory and motor AEs, while infrequent but potentially serious complications were only reported with DBS. Future high-quality prospective studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.